TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omplainant visited Neemrana City for some personal work, he was shocked to know from a section of property dealers that the said developer did not own any land in Neemrana. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the concerned State Government office and the Sub-Registrar office. The aforesaid fact was also confirmed by the said government authorities. On 05.02.2007 a legal notice was served upon M/s. VIAN Infrastructure Ltd. asking them their position with regard to the quantum of land possessed by them for the said project. However, no reply to the said notice was received from M/s. VIAN Infrastructure Ltd. Thereafter, another notice dated 11.05.2007 was served on the company. The company in its reply to this notice assured the complainant that there is no need to panic and he would be allotted a plot at an appropriate time. Thereafter, trusting the version of the accused company the complainant made payment to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand) i.e. 50% of the total sum of the plot. On 17.05.2007 the complainant inquired from the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror, who in turn informed the complai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he date the applicant resigned as a Consultant from the accused company. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant, Vijay Kumar Sharma also submitted that on 14.05.2013, the applicant was arrested by the officials of Crime Branch in the present case and was sent to police custody for 10 days. On 27.05.2013, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody again. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved an application in the month of November 2013 before the learned ACMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, who dismissed the bail application of the applicant vide order dated 13.11.2013. Consequently, the applicant moved another bail application under section 439 Cr.PC before the court of learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, who vide order dated 22.01.2014 dismissed the same. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant Surya Kirti Thapar submitted that firstly, the applicant moved an application under Section 437 Cr.PC before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi which was dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2009. He then moved another application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. which was also dismissed by learned District Judge-IV, New Delhi on 10.09.2009. The applicant,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he applicant Surya Kirti Thapar was admitted to interim bail for a period of six months vide order dated 08.09.2011. However, due to his judicial remand in other cases, the applicant could not be released. 10. The applicant Surya Kirti Thapar moved a fresh application under Section 436-A Cr.PC which was dismissed by the learned ACMM-01/New Delhi vide order dated 17.09.2013. Aggrieved by the said order the applicant Surya Kirti Thapar moved another application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in terms of order dated 25.04.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.389/2011. The said application was also dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 12.11.2013. Thereafter, the applicant moved another application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, New Delhi which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2014. 11. Learned senior counsel for the applicant Surya Kirti Thapar has vehemently contended that the applicant is in judicial custody since 07.08.2009 and, therefore, his continued incarceration is not likely to serve any purpose since the investigation is already complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. In support of his subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mely Surya Kirti Thapar and Vijay Kumar Sharma are accused. He also submits that applicant Vijay Kumar Sharma did not join investigation and he was declared proclaimed offender. Thereafter, he was arrested. 15. As per status report filed on behalf of State the applicant Surya Kirti Thapar has withdrawn about Rs.4 crores (Rupees Four crores) in cash through self-cheques from the account of accused company bearing account No.352701010111304 and an amount of Rs.3.5 crores (Rupees Three crores fifty lakhs) (approximately) was transferred in the account of the applicant. In addition to the said amount, an amount of Rs.9.66 crores (Rupees Nine crores sixty six lakhs) and Rs.11 crores (Rupees Eleven crores) were transferred to the accounts of M/s. Sajjad Properties and M/s. PSG Developers. Thus, it has been submitted that the gravity of the offence is so serious that it does not deserve to be a case where a benefit of bail should be granted. 16. I have carefully given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for applicants and learned APP for the State and have also gone through the material on record and the judgments cited by learned counsel for applicant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SCC 439, has held as under: - "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." 20. The entire community will suffer if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not booked. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passion being aroused but an economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequences to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which few white collar crimes with a permissive eye, unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest. 21. The Apex Court in "Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, ....